DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:to:from:subject:mime-version
	:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=BaTet9Rzbz2tXsLr858rWSbdAJFaz
	M6Suij2Moc1ExJf+LUwJTuMfwM/4Ps1Sh4nSwdjS9rbWAf48/rWGX9fVyNj8Bh9P
	+8W1JOlQ5+9Tx6RgBjtpWeINLV6s7Vdx+gExZVlq3IGYvpoJLppNwC1FA73o/ixq
	jEgEpQ9SveKDZM=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130731150650.03acc868@binnacle.cx>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:07:19 -0400
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, Stephan Mueller <Stephan DOT Mueller AT microsoft DOT com>
From: starlight DOT 2013z3 AT binnacle DOT cx
Subject: RE: possible bug in 1.7.22-1 core DLLs
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Received-SPF: pass (mx.binnacle.cx: 172.29.87.10 is whitelisted by SPF-milter whitelist entry)

At 06:31 PM 7/31/2013 +0000, Stephan Mueller wrote:
>Yeah, I can see your viewpoint here.  Christopher
>is known for being brusque at times.  And you may
>have, no doubt accidentally, pushed a hot button
>for this particular community.
>
>For what it's worth, the Cygwin folks do prefer
>that people join the community when asking for
>help.  Personally, I have no problem with hitting
>'Reply All' to make sure the author of a message
>gets a reply in addition to the group, but I think
>it's also a reasonable stance that to get support
>for a free product, people take the small step of
>joining the mailing list.

Some people like myself cannot abide subscribing
to firehose mailing lists and prefer to view
discussion threads with a browser.   It does not
mean contributors, direct or indirect, are any
of value.  Even if I were a direct contributor
monitoring it closely, I would /dev/null the
list and browse it.

>As for Christopher's brusequeness, I don't read
>what he wrote as nastiness; he's really just being
>extremely direct.

Rude at a minimum.  The old saying applies:
You catch more flies with honey than with
vinegar.

>it's absolutely true that it's
>unlikely that anyone is going to look into this
>problem because it's not clear what the steps to
>reproduce the problem are, or even what the
>symptoms are, at this point.

It was fairly obvious from my message that
I was reservedly offering to help find the
problem, not in particular of a fix.  Finding
the cause of such problems is generally 
3x to 10x harder than fixing them, so the
loss here is the community's.

>A reasonable next step might be for you to provide
>the list with more specific info on the problem.
>The acronym STC (simple test case) is often found
>on the list -- as in "STC appreciated".

STCs are rarely "simple" to create.  Usually
a ton of work.

>Ultimately, I'd encourage you to give the list
>another chance

Not this summer.  Have helped in the past
but don't have much time have been turned
off.

>since the folks there (Christopher
>and Corinna are the two who do the bulk of the
>work on cygwin1.dll -- and as far as I know it's
>all volunteer) are generally very responsive to
>specific bug reports and turn around fixes
>quickly.

I am, aware of this and do appreciate their
efforts and CYGWIN, which is a great product.

>If you don't help isolate the issues
>that are causing _you_ grief, then you may be
>forever stuck on 1.7.16.

I dropped in 1.7.17 DLLs and it works fine.

Fixes the CTRL-C problem and the point
behind it all, running a critical build
script, work as well.

>
>stephan($0.02);
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cygwin-owner at cygwin dot com
>On Behalf Of starlight.2013z3 at binnacle dot cx
>Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:26 AM
>To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
>Subject: Re: possible bug in 1.7.22-1 core DLLs
>
>Well I uncovered a serious regression
>and expressed a willingness to track
>down the cause.
>
>However your nasty reply and bad attitude
>assures that I will defintiely not help
>now.
>
>At 01:21 PM 7/31/2013 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>You are right in assuming that newer DLLs should
>>work with older binaries but no one is willing to
>>do tech support or debugging based on vague
>>problem reports.  So, it isn't clear exactly what
>>you're expecting.  If you think someone is going
>>to take a "1.7.16" installation and then drop a
>>newer cygwin1.dll into it to debug your problem
>>then you are likely going to be disappointed -
>>especially if you can't even be bothered to
>>subscribe to the mailing list.
>
>


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple